| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Space - History Forum » News - Budget Crunch Delays NASA's Moon Ship
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
| Author |
Message |
| Rand Simberg |
 Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2 Mar 2007 06:25:13 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Hyper"
<hyperboreea@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
Quote: On Mar 2, 4:00 pm, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 07:35:47 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
Rand Simberg wrote:
It's not $500M a shot.
It's closer to $700M a shot.
No, it's closer to $150 million a shot.
$150M ? I'd really like to see some figures detailing that - if you
happen to have them handy.
That's (approximately) the marginal cost of a flight. ET, SRB,
mission-specific crew training, propellants...
It's always dangerous (and often pointless) to toss out a cost number
for Shuttle without explaining its origin. Average costs (like much
higher ones you cited) are wildly fluctuating, because they're highly
dependent on annual flight rate. Thefirst flight after Columbia, in
July 2005, probably cost about ten billion dollars. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Rand Simberg |
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:00:45 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
Quote: Rand Simberg wrote:
It's not $500M a shot.
It's closer to $700M a shot.
No, it's closer to $150 million a shot.
Rand, you need to be clear about this. It's $150 million to add a flight to
any year that the shuttle program gets its "normal" amount of funding, which
is overhead plus $150 million times the number of "normal" flights in a
year.
However, we're talking about ending the program. If we extend the program
by three months to add that one extra flight, I don't see how you can claim
it would only cost $150 million.
Yes, then the cost would be a quarter of the annual funding, or around
a billion or so. My point is that there's really no such thing as a
"cost per shot" for the Shuttle. It depends. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jeff Findley |
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Hyper" <hyperboreea@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172845510.541779.301500@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On Mar 2, 4:00 pm, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 07:35:47 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
Rand Simberg wrote:
It's not $500M a shot.
It's closer to $700M a shot.
No, it's closer to $150 million a shot.
$150M ? I'd really like to see some figures detailing that - if you
happen to have them handy.
Rand's number is about what it costs to add an extra flight to any given
year. I'm not sure this applies in this case, since if you decide to extend
the entire *program* by so many months, or years, you've got to include the
overhead of the program in addition to this $150 million per flight cost.
Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Greg D. Moore (Strider) |
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.interglobal@org.trash> wrote in message
news:46482dfd.1341757535@news.giganews.com...
Quote: On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 07:35:47 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery <flanner@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
Rand Simberg wrote:
It's not $500M a shot.
It's closer to $700M a shot.
No, it's closer to $150 million a shot.
No, that's incremental costs.
If you're extending the shuttle program several years, it's far more than
that. Even you know better than that Rand. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Greg D. Moore (Strider) |
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.interglobal@org.trash> wrote in message
news:464b3ed9.1346073851@news.giganews.com...
Quote: On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 10:00:45 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" <jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
Rand Simberg wrote:
It's not $500M a shot.
It's closer to $700M a shot.
No, it's closer to $150 million a shot.
Rand, you need to be clear about this. It's $150 million to add a flight
to
any year that the shuttle program gets its "normal" amount of funding,
which
is overhead plus $150 million times the number of "normal" flights in a
year.
However, we're talking about ending the program. If we extend the program
by three months to add that one extra flight, I don't see how you can
claim
it would only cost $150 million.
Yes, then the cost would be a quarter of the annual funding, or around
a billion or so. My point is that there's really no such thing as a
"cost per shot" for the Shuttle. It depends.
Ah, I see, it's your inability to read from context screwing you up. Since
it was clear the original poster was talking aboute extending the program a
few years, the incremental costs clearly don't apply. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Rand Simberg |
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 17:24:14 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
Quote: "Rand Simberg" <simberg.interglobal@org.trash> wrote in message
news:46482dfd.1341757535@news.giganews.com...
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 07:35:47 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery <flanner@daktel.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
Rand Simberg wrote:
It's not $500M a shot.
It's closer to $700M a shot.
No, it's closer to $150 million a shot.
No, that's incremental costs.
If you're extending the shuttle program several years, it's far more than
that. Even you know better than that Rand.
What I know is that when it comes to Shuttle costs, almost any number
that someone throws out as "per shot" is wrong. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| richard schumacher |
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Write your Congresspeople and point out that NASA would save a lot of
time and money by paying Boeing and LockMart to launch the Orion craft
using modified versions of Delta and Atlas. Building Ares I and Ares V
is a waste.
Sure, they're not likely to listen, but we have to try. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| surfduke |
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 2, 8:21 pm, richard schumacher <no-s...@invalid.net> wrote:
Quote: Write your Congresspeople and point out that NASA would save a lot of
time and money by paying Boeing and LockMart to launch the Orion craft
using modified versions of Delta and Atlas. Building Ares I and Ares V
is a waste.
Sure, they're not likely to listen, but we have to try.
Amen! I do not want to be stuck in the gravity well, (watching other
folks fly). The Delta & Atlas Heavy lift concept drawings look cool
too! M.T. would pitch a sideways shit fit, (But who needs SRB's, (If
it can be done quicker and safer with L.F. boosters)).
Carl |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Hyper |
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mar 3, 3:21 am, richard schumacher <no-s...@invalid.net> wrote:
Quote: Write your Congresspeople and point out that NASA would save a lot of
time and money by paying Boeing and LockMart to launch the Orion craft
using modified versions of Delta and Atlas. Building Ares I and Ares V
is a waste.
Sure, they're not likely to listen, but we have to try.
Granted Ares I is a bad ideea when comparable vehicles exist. A
significant order from NASA might even draw the price down a bit.
Unfortunately, there are no heavy launch vehicles to be had at this
time and sending your spacecraft to orbit in 20t pieces might not be
the best ideea (financially or ortherwise).
The Shuttle-C might have done the job, but ... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| frédéric haessig |
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Hyper" <hyperboreea@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1172926983.227483.183860@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Quote: Unfortunately, there are no heavy launch vehicles to be had at this
time and sending your spacecraft to orbit in 20t pieces might not be
the best ideea (financially or ortherwise).
The Shuttle-C might have done the job, but ...
Both DeltaIVH and Ariane V have a payload capability in LEO which is above
20 t.
Either is available, either on a commercial basis ( Ariane V ) or for US
government contracts ( Delta IVH ).
I think that Ariane is way cheaper but a dependable contract may bring the
Delta IVH prices lower. Delta also has a slightly higher capability.
> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| richard schumacher |
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1172926983.227483.183860@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Hyper" <hyperboreea@yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: Write your Congresspeople and point out that NASA would save a lot of
time and money by paying Boeing and LockMart to launch the Orion craft
using modified versions of Delta and Atlas.
Granted Ares I is a bad ideea when comparable vehicles exist. A
significant order from NASA might even draw the price down a bit.
Unfortunately, there are no heavy launch vehicles to be had at this
time and sending your spacecraft to orbit in 20t pieces might not be
the best ideea (financially or ortherwise).
The Shuttle-C might have done the job, but ...
You're right, it would be better not to dilute the message by mentioning
Ares V; that's a fight for the future. Concentrate on convincing
Congress to order NASA to drop Ares I and instead use Atlas and Delta.
Ariane would work, of course, but any communication to a congressional
office which mentions purchase of non-US launch services will
immediately be tossed into the trash. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 05, 2008 4:25 am
|
|